Create a blog post subtitle that summarises your post in a few short, punchy sentences and entices your audience to continue reading. Welcome to your blog post. Use this space to connect with your readers and potential customers in a way that’s current and interesting. Think of it as an ongoing conversation where you can share updates about business, trends, news, and more. “Do you have a design in mind for your blog? Whether you prefer a trendy postcard look or you’re going for a more editorial style blog - there’s a stunning layout for everyone.” You’ll be posting loads of engaging content, so be sure to keep your blog organised with Categories that also allow visitors to explore more of what interests them. Create Relevant Content Writing a blog is a great way to position yourself as an authority in your field and captivate your readers’ attention. Do you want to improve your site’s SEO ranking? Consider topics that focus on relevant keywords and relate back to your website or business. You can also add hashtags (#vacation #dream #summer) throughout your posts to reach more people, and help visitors search for relevant content. Blogging gives your site a voice, so let your business’ personality shine through. Choose a great image to feature in your post or add a video for extra engagement. Are you ready to get started? Simply create a new post now.

Create a blog post subtitle that summarises your post in a few short, punchy sentences and entices your audience to continue reading. Welcome to your blog post. Use this space to connect with your readers and potential customers in a way that’s current and interesting. Think of it as an ongoing conversation where you can share updates about business, trends, news, and more. “Do you have a design in mind for your blog? Whether you prefer a trendy postcard look or you’re going for a more editorial style blog - there’s a stunning layout for everyone.” You’ll be posting loads of engaging content, so be sure to keep your blog organised with Categories that also allow visitors to explore more of what interests them. Create Relevant Content Writing a blog is a great way to position yourself as an authority in your field and captivate your readers’ attention. Do you want to improve your site’s SEO ranking? Consider topics that focus on relevant keywords and relate back to your website or business. You can also add hashtags (#vacation #dream #summer) throughout your posts to reach more people, and help visitors search for relevant content. Blogging gives your site a voice, so let your business’ personality shine through. Choose a great image to feature in your post or add a video for extra engagement. Are you ready to get started? Simply create a new post now.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on global economies and has hit small businesses particularly hard. The woes of the restaurant industry in struggling to stay afloat, for example, are particularly well known. For the research community, especially those reliant on in-person research, business essentially came to a halt during the peak of the pandemic lockdown. Some research companies were able to survive the storm better than others, revealing key advantages and disadvantages to different business approaches, particularly for the neuromarketing field. Neuromarketing, according to Wikipedia, is “a commercial marketing communication field that applies neuropsychology to market research, studying consumers’ sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective responses to marketing stimuli.” Some neuromarketing methodologies, like EEG or other physiological measures, require in-person participation at a research facility. Other methodologies, like facial coding, can be done remotely at the participant’s home; however, the reliability and validity of those methods can be shakier. As in-person research dramatically slowed, client research did not stop entirely. End clients needed to find new ways to market their products, develop new products to address changing needs and, ultimately, develop better, more COVID-cautious means to do it all. Many shifted to virtual methodologies, such as on-line qual, or included more in-home research. Facing the challenges of the pandemic (lockdowns, social distancing, etc.), two camps of neuromarketing companies became evident, and their very different approaches to research drove their ability to succeed in the rapidly changing environment: One-Trick Ponies: Research providers that positioned themselves before COVID as purely neuromarketing companies, promoting the concept of measuring the unconscious using neuro-tools, such as EEG and biometrics, as the answer to most consumer marketing research problems and challenges. These companies often tout neuro-measures as replacements for surveys (a research red flag). Renaissance Researchers: Research providers that use an integrated approach to research design with a combination of tools from neuroscience, psychology, behavioral economics and traditional market and consumer research. These companies tend to rely on customized research designs dependent on the client’s research question and goals. How Did Neuromarketing Companies Fair During Lockdown? According to Forbes Magazine in September 2020, Nielsen Neuroscience, a market leader in the neuromarketing space, drastically cut personnel and locations in response to the pandemic. They were not alone; many companies struggled, and the recovery has been slow. Seeing these responses had me wondering: Were there differences in the types of companies that were able to whether the storm and keep research going? I’ve always thought that being diversified in methodologies (the Renaissance Researchers) AND in research sectors is necessary for success. And I hypothesize that having flexibility, agility and an integrated approach directly impacted these companies’ ability to survive in times of crisis, such as a pandemic. And I think this is particularly the case for neuromarketing companies compared to traditional market research companies. Why? Lockdown negatively impacted central location market research. One-Trick Ponies that positioned their one tool (such as EEG) requiring in-person, central location measurement as the primary method to solve all marketing research challenges faced a major obstacle: They could not run research until in-person returned. From protecting employees and participants from potential COVID exposure to problems in recruiting, as well as changes in client policy regarding in-person research, conducting central location testing and market research became extremely challenging. Being Agile & Flexible Saved HCD I believe a strong argument can be made for approaching market research challenges with multiple methodologies. At HCD, we have always pushed that a multi-faceted approach is important to ensure you are using the right tool for the right question, combining neuroscience, psychology, and traditional marketing research for more accurate and comprehensive insights to consumer perceptions and reactions. There is no one tool that measures all research questions. Each tool has advantages and limitations, including requiring in-person measurement or not. As we always say at HCD, “Use the right tool for the right question.” And the COVID pandemic revealed that not having the flexibility of alternative tools impacted One-Trick Ponies more than Renaissance Researchers. My hypothesis is that flexibility, agility, and an integrated approach is not only a better means of doing any research but also has a direct impact on a company’s ability to survive in times of crisis and change, such as during a pandemic. What does agility mean in market research? Being agile is certainly a buzzword, and as with most buzzwords, it can be interpreted in different ways. The Agile Movement is a method of project management usually involving software and concepts like minimum viable product, sprints, and scrums. In this case, being agile in research can also mean the ability to be responsive and flexible, which is really what the Agile Movement is built upon. The advantage of flexibility and being agile as a market research provider means our structure allows us to change methodologies based on situational needs, from project goals to budget or timing constraints, including location or participant limitations or needs. And in the case of COVID lockdown, being an agile, flexible research partner allowed us to respond to specific research challenges and significant environmental changes with relative ease and success, adapting to new market situations and conditions. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, market research had swung from in-person or phone-based research into a digital or internet-based research paradigm. We know this because we were there as one of the first companies to move research online. But then, with the advent of neuromarketing, this pendulum swung back towards in-person research, with neuromarketing tools requiring “wiring up” of participants. Once again, HCD was there as one of the early adopters of psycho-physiological tools. Since its inception, neuromarketing tools have mostly been employed to study the impact of advertising and media concepts, such as broadcast, print, and digital communications, as well as movie trailers and entertainment pilots. As a result, many marketing and media researchers began to rely heavily on this research method. However, with the constraints of central location research during COVID, the research pendulum swung again from the one-on-one interactions back to more traditional online methods, but with a “neuro” twist. Clients began to push for more virtual or digital methodologies, such as implicit reaction testing, online eye tracking, and online facial coding. As a result of this push towards virtual and digital methods, insights may have been lost relying only on cognitive response paired with widely criticized online versions of facial coding and eye tracking. Due to the necessity of “no contact” data collection methods, these methods overtook other well-tested neuroscience methods. But production in this space also appeared to slow down. However, one market did not slow down… The product development process requires in-person experience with product concepts. R&D projects are on strict time schedules, and even pandemics don’t freeze the development timeline. Once again, we were already there, already established as a reliable and expert player in product and consumer research. With our agility in methodology and diversity in markets, we have not only survived, but we have also flourished during these times. The consumer product segment has increased our volume for traditional, psychological and neuroscience methods over the past 2 years. I’m so proud of HCD and its flexibility and agility, as well as its consistent drive to operate on the premise that market research is not defined by one methodology but rather by integration of multiple tools to provide answers for varying consumer research challenges and client needs.

My name is Alexandra Michiels and I am an economics and finance student at McGill University. During my time as an intern at HCD Research, I learned about market research – a rapidly expanding discipline becoming more and more central to the businesses of tomorrow, given the advent of a data-driven future – a topic on which I had no ground knowledge prior to this internship. In relation, I discovered that neuroscience, mainly its application within market research, plays a central role in understanding why and how consumers make their decisions. I am very grateful to have been able to participate in this internship that has impacted me in many positive ways. Indeed, I learned important skills such as problem solving, communication, time management and searching, as well as filtering for credible information. I am glad this internship has given me such an interdisciplinary set of skills, which helped me to considerably develop my knowledge. To gain deeper insight into consumers’ decision-making process and daily habit loops, we must consider both their explicit and implicit attitudes. The use of neuroscientific methods, specifically implicit, helps improve our understanding in cognitive, neural, and emotional mechanisms are related to marketing-relevant behavior. Through my first research project, I learned more on the use of implicit research, which seeks to measure underlying responses that people are not often conscious of, and hence, would not be able to report on when being explicitly asked to. This research project specifically focused on the use of implicit methodology in human resources (HR) research, a relatively unknown topic to the market research industry. My presentation reviewed different approaches used by market research companies in HR research, and whether neuroscience is included in their data collection process. Throughout my research experience, I faced numerous new challenges such as finding pertinent information regarding the use of neuroscience in HR research, which ultimately resulted in my growth individually as a business student and as a part of the team. My second research project dealt with the concept of brand harmony. When a company launches a new product, consumers have certain expectations based on the brand’s identity, product packaging, product marketing, and more. It is important for the brand to ensure that these expectations are met, combining product and brand perceptions, to produce brand harmony. During my research process on brand harmony, I faced yet another set of new challenges. One of these challenges was that brand harmony is not a new phenomenon, however, other market research companies will refer to it, using equivalent, but diverse language. I, therefore, learned to conduct my research using only a few key words, pinpointing relevant information while being aware of the limitations of online research, to then reconstruct a clear image of what can be defined as brand harmony. Acknowledging limitations is a key aspect of rigorous research, something which was repeatedly emphasized throughout this internship. Overall, this work enhanced my critical thinking and research abilities, as well as fine-tuned my presentation skills. My experience as a summer intern is twofold. On the one hand, it allowed me to build a solid knowledge base in different fields of market research, as well as neuroscience and its purpose in consumer-based research. On the other, it enabled me to improve my communication and organization and establish a new set of skills such as being able to ‘read between the lines’ and recognize hidden opportunities, which will continually be useful throughout my career in business.

The purpose of usability (UX) research is to help designers and developers deliver great user experiences in a very simple and accessible way. UX is simply the idea that a normal person should be able to use products without finding the process frustrating or annoying. But it can be difficult to unobtrusively measure these experiences. Traditional tools for UX include surveys and interviews (asked after the experience about the experience), eye tracking and behavioral recording analytics (tracking behaviors with the product), expert review (where an expert navigates the product and reports any issues), and speak-aloud qualitative research (hearing user experiences reported as they navigate a product). Most of these tools rely on either user recall of the experience or interrupting the experience in some way, and they lack a way of assessing experiences that are more difficult to self-report, such as emotions and cognitive effort. A behavioral science approach to UX design can help increase calls to action by making the process simple, easy, and pleasing. And a great place to test this out was with vaccine scheduling websites. Public health officials continue to stress the importance of vaccination as a way to curb the spread of Covid-19. Getting individuals to sign up for a vaccine appointment is a fundamental step in administering more shots. One major step in signing up for the vaccine is scheduling an appointment online. And in the early days of vaccine availability, this was a challenging task due to a combination of poor UX design and limited vaccines. Designing an intuitive website can actually encourage calls to action and help people who are actively seeking out the Covid-19 vaccine but are struggling to use the interface. To better understand the pain points within the process of signing up for the Covid-19 vaccine, HCD Research partnered with IVP Research Labs to run a NeuroUX study using neuroscientific tools to get in-the-moment responses to two common vaccine sites, CVS Pharmacy (CVS) and Rite Aid. The use of an electroencephalography (EEG) recorded cognitive and emotional reactions in real time. Eye tracking (ET) was also incorporated to understand what the participant focused on during the event, helping to pinpoint and evaluate specific moments of the entire user experience. Pairing behavioral data, such as overall task completion time, with the tools available through NeuroUX shares the larger story of the complications within vaccine scheduling. Let’s take a look at how website navigation varied between the two sites. Getting behind the problem As a rule, people don’t like to puzzle over how to do things. If a website doesn’t seem to care enough to make things obvious, it can erode confidence in the site and its products. The two Covid-19 scheduling sites have very different approaches towards navigating the site. Rite Aid’s landing page provides an easy-to-find banner ad encouraging individuals to “Stay Updated on Covid-19,” with an emphasis on scheduling the vaccine appointment by explicitly stating “Schedule Vaccine Appointment,” while highlighting the link in a different color. CVS’s page is much more text-heavy and lacks a clear direction to set up an appointment. It is unclear where to click, since the landing page is stressing CVS’s #OneStepCloser hashtag, rather than guiding the individual to schedule their first or second doses. The confusion created on the landing page is reflected in the cognitive and emotional responses of the participant. Being on the CVS landing page showed a greater workload in comparison to Rite Aid, which is indicative of more mental effort required to broach the task. The Frontal Asymmetry Index, or the emotional index, on the landing page was very similar, with CVS having a slightly higher emotional index. The greater the emotional index, the more of a negative affect occurs. For both sites, the participant was orienting to the page and held similar levels of motivation to complete the task at hand. Therefore, it suggests the participant remained consistent in the beginning of the process between the two sites in terms of drive to completion. To qualify or not to qualify- that is the question Following the first impression, there were other times early on causing emotional activations. CVS includes a pre-check questionnaire about Covid-19 symptoms that also resulted in an increased negative affect emotional activation. In addition, extra pages are included defining the differences between receiving one-dose or two-dose vaccinations, asking the individual to specify the type of vaccine they are scheduling, etc. While these questions and additional information are concise, reflecting on if they or someone they know tested positive or had symptoms proved to be unpleasant, these extra steps extend the process, offering additional opportunities for individuals to drop off or give up. One major differentiator between the two sites was when the participant learned that there were no CVS appointments available in New Jersey. This frustration was reflected in the emotional index, with a major negative affect spike. Additionally, the pop-up provides a lot of information and is not clear as to where to click, which could also be impacting the workload index. The participant experienced a higher workload with a negative response, implying there is a struggle determining eligibility on the CVS site. On the other site, Rite Aid shares information by including a PDF to guide participants about what “eligibility” means and includes a survey with straightforward questions, ultimately sharing if the participant qualifies. The PDF is very dense and full of facts, resulting in stress of excess information (causing a spike in negative affect). This overall streamlined approach makes it easier for the participant to make a decision about how to navigate the site. However, both CVS and Rite Aid would benefit by simplifying text-heavy sections, such as the PDF and the pop-up, to avoid the negative affect caused by information overload. Do the users have “a shot” at a home run? When the participant finally reached the stage where they could set up an appointment, the cognitive responses exposed interesting insights. While the amount of cognitive demand remained similar (as seen through the workload index), the emotional activation differed. CVS has a drop in frontal asymmetry, implying a decline in negative affect. This response may be caused by the sense of relief in finally surpassing the various hurdles experienced throughout the overall sign-up process. Although Rite Aid did have a greater negative affect compared to CVS, when comparing the emotional activation to the overall Rite Aid experience, it stayed consistent. Unlike the ups and downs experienced with CVS, the emotional reaction seen with the Rite Aid experience suggests the interactions caused a similar overall temperament. Takeaways: While both websites include potential areas of improvement, scheduling a vaccine appointment through Rite Aid presented an overall easier experience for the user. The lower workload during the landing page and steps to determine eligibility suggests the site is cognitively easier to navigate. It also seems more intuitive with a streamlined approach to setting up an appointment. Additionally, incorporating small rewards, such as the “Great news!” prompt encourages the individual to finish out the process and feel motivated to select a pharmacy. The CVS scheduling experience was a longer, more arduous experience (with the overall time to completion being 4.7 minutes longer than Rite Aid). The instructions are unclear and include a lot of material which may contribute to confusion or uncertainty about using the interface. The differences between the cognitive and emotional responses expose where there is a lack of clarity on where to click. Incongruent interactions, such as scrolling back and forth to find no appointments are available, can spoil an experience. Giving visual cues to better indicate unavailable appointments, such as graying out the state, can clearly and quickly communicate the message of limited options in that state. Building trust during this experience is really important, given hesitation surrounding Covid-19 vaccines. By condensing the number of pages necessary to complete the task and creating a clear path through the site’s journey, CVS has the ability to create a better bond with the individual and provide a more satisfying experience. Although there are nuances to each site’s user experience, both would benefit from clearer calls to action. By recording brain activity during the task through a noninvasive approach such as EEG, the usability of both websites can be accurately assessed, and particular areas of improvement can be detected. Peaks in workload and emotional activation reveal areas of potential issues. NeuroUX serves as an additional indicator of cognitive workload and emotional activation, helping differentiate the two experiences and discovering in-the-moment responses that may be challenging for participants to recall or verbalize. The results analyzed can help vaccine clinics, website designers, and/or public health officials improve usability to avoid individuals from being discouraged from signing-up not only for the Covid-19 vaccine but also for seasonal flu shots. Making an effective and streamlined process can potentially help encourage all types of individuals, not just the tech-savvy, to take the appropriate steps for their health wants and needs. Addressing areas of confusion to improve the usability of the website has the potential to build trust and confidence in the larger picture of the vaccine, booster, or flu shot. Keeping to a simple and straightforward approach can reduce confusion, hesitation, and dropouts, ultimately creating a positive change for both the individual, the company, and the public health effort at large. NeuroUX provides an opportunity to fully optimize any calls to action. From purchasing to subscriptions to just trying to give the consumer a little more information, every interface has the potential to improve with the insights gleaned from NeuroUX. If you are interested in learning more about the benefits of NeuroUX research, please reach out to Allison Gutkowski at Allison.Gutkowski@hcdi.net

As a student who is learning behavioral science and interested in market research, NeuroU 2021 was a very exciting opportunity for me to learn more about the different potentials of applying behavioral science in consumer market research. I was able to look at consumer research from the perspective of industries instead of academia and more deeply understand the application of different research methods in the industries. Among all sessions, I especially liked the Eight Mistakes Persuasive Marketing Makes presented by Dr. Steve Genco. This session reminded me that research in consumer behavior has been constantly evolving, and that it is important to reflect on the marketing methods that companies are used to adopting without thinking twice. For example, Dr. Genco mentioned that marketers have been trying hard to grab consumers’ attention without realizing the possible negative consequences. Yet, with more of the possible consequences being found in research in psychology and behavioral science, marketers should update their knowledge of consumer behavior and start to develop new strategies to cope with the challenge of consumers’ limited attention. Interestingly, although I have learned about the possible negative consequences of fighting for consumers’ attention, I still assumed, before I attended this session, that this is what marketing should do. While it sounds easy to be flexible and reflective, it is actually hard to do! The session would have been even more interesting if I could have heard about case studies where companies use other marketing methods to strategically activate attention, so that I could understand not only the problem that marketers face but also the existing solutions that marketers have thought of. In short, NeuroU 2021 was a unique opportunity for me to explore how behavioral science can be used to help marketers better understand consumer behavior. I look forward to applying what I’ve learned at NeuroU 2021 in my future work and continuing to incorporate behavioral science in market research using neuroscience tools.

Whether you are interested in applied consumer neuroscience, never heard of such a thing, or are an expert in the field, there is always something new to learn and explore. NeuroU was born out of the realization that both industry and academia share the same questions and curiosity about the science, tools, and techniques used (and often abused) in applied consumer neuroscience. HCD Research hosts this annual symposium to initiate an interdisciplinary and open discussion on how applied consumer neuroscience is evolving, to learn about the innovations in the field, and to discuss ways to do better research, including the related fields of traditional market research, behavioral sciences, sensory & consumer science, and communications research. As researchers, we are very aware that the learning is a continuous process. NeuroU 2021 offered access to all of HCD Research’s content, from last year’s NeuroU introductory sessions as well as a vast collection of content, from white papers on Applied Neuroscience methods to webinars and vidcasts focusing on special topics, demos and infographics to help attendees learn a little more about everything applied neuroscience, and interactive and networking opportunities. In the spirit of our ultimate goals of sharing knowledge and education, we wanted to put all of this content in one place for anyone seeking more information on applied neuroscience, this event, or HCD Research. Let’s start with doing a little “blast from the past” to NeuroU 2020. Below are the links to each day’s recordings: NeuroU Day 1 (best day for beginners – check out our intro to applied neuroscience and methods sessions for a more general overview of the area) NeuroU Day 2 (diving deep into technologies with leaders in the field) NeuroU Day 3 (exploring sensory and consumer product applications) NeuroU Day 4 (discussing marketing and communications applications) NeuroU Day 5 (guest lectures on consumer research) NeuroU Day 6 (guest lectures on problem solving and review of educational tools and tracks) In addition to the session recordings above, which range from general overviews to more in-depth case studies, we have tons of educational content that anyone can view for free. Take a look at the links listed below and be sure to visit our YouTube page and other social media to keep up to date on everything we put out there! HCD Research White Papers: Learn about complex issues in a simplified format with HCD Research’s White Papers. These short reports act as guides to help better understand intricate concepts or measurements quickly (with useful academic and scientific references for future learning). HCD Research Tech Demos: Watch hands-on, simplified demos of some of our neuro and psychological tools here! The HCD Research Mindset Vidcasts: Check out HCD Research’s Mindset Vidcasts, where Michelle Niedziela, PhD, VP of Research & Innovation, & Kathryn Ambroze, Manager of Behavioral & Marketing Sciences, chat with industry leaders, internal experts, and each other about big topics in human behavior. These sessions deep dive into the limitations and pitfalls of emerging trends and topics within the field to help you identify what innovation has a lot of untapped value or is too good to be true. The best part? We have season 1, season 2, and season 3 (coming soon) ready to share. HCD Research Webinars: Join the HCD team and various other experts as we tackle topics such as AI, behavioral science, claims, norms, wellness and more! These webinars focus on specific topics to discuss, dissect, and think about how applied neuroscience tools may be applied in these areas. HCD Research Blogs: Gain in-depth insight from the HCD team on trends, research, and case studies within the world of applied consumer neuroscience here. HCD Research Infographics: If you are looking for a quick overview of a topic, check out these infographics for some bite-sized learnings! HCD Research Bibliography: Team HCD works hard to create quality content, which includes numerous publications. To receive the full list of the most up-to-date bibliography, please reach out to Allison at Allison.Gutkowski@hcdi.net. NeuroU is intended to be an opportunity for individuals interested in applied consumer neuroscience to connect, network, and learn from each other. Join our NeuroU by HCD Research LinkedIn page to share thoughts or continue the conversations inspired by the symposium, as well as keep in the know for updates on future events. We also invite you to reach out to HCD Research if you have any further questions, concerns, or comments.

An HCD Case Study Although we are well into a year of having Covid-19 being a major component of our lives, many individuals are still sick and dying every day from this virus. A reported 4.38 million deaths have resulted from this pandemic, and with little to no understanding about the long-term effects of Covid-19 for those who survive, the ramification of this virus continues to unfold. Yet, over the past seventeen months, researchers and scientists have gained a good grasp about useful mitigation strategies that reduce the spread of infection. Along with the promising influences of universal masking, encouraged outdoor activities, and curfews, vaccinations have proven to be an effective tool for keeping people out of the hospital and dying (CDC, 2021). The rollout of the Covid-19 vaccine ignited mixed opinions: some feeling relieved and optimistic, while contrasting views were skepticism and fear. HCD Research partnered with Farrah Kharche from the University of Pennsylvania Master’s in Behavioral and Decision Science program to explore consumer-driven brand perceptions of vaccine providers in the United States. Identifying and analyzing these perceptions is a valuable component in translating consumer belief into a desired behavior, such as vaccine adoption. Location, location, location! Since this study focuses on consumers in the US, perceptions were measured on the three currently available vaccine providers: Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were developed with a novel mRNA technique that requires two doses, while the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is a single-dose, traditional viral vector vaccine (Person, 2021). These perceptions were collected in July 2021 to ascertain if consumers associate specific emotional and brand attributes with the three vaccine providers. Among the 250 survey participants (ages 18-64), 64% reported being vaccinated. Unsurprisingly, the majority of participants reported they either did receive or would be comfortable getting a vaccine in spaces such as a doctor’s office or a pharmacy (76% and 70%), while only half received or felt comfortable receiving a vaccine in a grocery store. Vaccination sites that were less popular included hospitals (47%) and mass vaccination sites (8%). The minority of individuals willing to receive a dose at a mass vaccination site is concerning, as this method is an efficient way to distribute the vaccine. Considering the environment in which individuals would be willing to receive a vaccine shot is really important while making plans for future rollouts. It is clear based on these responses that context plays a major role in encouraging certain behaviors. The Methodology To explore if perceptual differences exist, both explicit and implicit responses were collected from participants through open-ended responses and an implicit reaction test (IRT). An IRT is a timed reaction test which reveals, in this case, if consumers associated the vaccine provider with the attribute displayed. If the vaccine provider and the descriptor were a match, the participant was instructed to press the spacebar as fast as possible. The faster response is indicative of a stronger association. Further, investigating the IRT responses along with the documented free-form responses describing the vaccine providers offers an interesting overview about how consumers feel about the Covid-19 vaccine brands. Giving the vaccine a shot The word clouds below of the three vaccine providers reveal the pertinent descriptors used for each brand. Figure 1 shares the explicit attitudes of participants. Interestingly, each vaccine provider often was referred to as “safe.” Moderna and Pfizer were both often noted as “effective,” while Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer were considered “reliable.” Johnson & Johnson was also referred to as “trusted.” Figure 1: Above are the world clouds for the three vaccine brands: Johnson & Johnson (green), Pfizer (blue), and Moderna (red). The IRT consisted of brand and emotional descriptors, giving insight into how consumers feel about different vaccine providers as well understanding what features of the brand translate to consumer perception. For the brand IRT, both Moderna and Pfizer had significantly higher associations with the word “available” than Johnson & Johnson, with more than 65% of the participants. Both vaccine providers also demonstrated high and medium associations significantly higher than Johnson & Johnson with words such as “healthy,” “safe,” “reliable,” and “effective.” Figure 2: Implicit emotional association responses, categorized into high, medium, and low based on the timed reaction to exposure to the descriptor. It does not appear the viral vector vaccine utilized by Moderna or Pfizer created notable qualms among the words tested, since the brand words with high and medium associations are positive concepts. Contrastingly, Johnson & Johnson is not satisfying any of the brand attributes tested and could benefit by building a stronger narrative around the one-dose vaccine. Interestingly, the implicit responses about Johnson & Johnson differ from the explicit descriptors, where participants frequently noted the brand as reliable and trusted. This suggests that although participants deliberately find Johnson & Johnson trusted and reliable, there is an unspoken disconnect and hesitation which needs to be addressed and highlighted in the company’s messaging and outreach. As for the implicit emotional associations, more than 65% of participants highly associated both Moderna and Pfizer with being “normal” and “safe,” significantly more than Johnson & Johnson. Additionally, Moderna and Pfizer also shared a medium association with participants feeling “confident” and “social.” The two vaccine providers overall had very positive connotations associated with them, with negative emotional words, such as “scared” or “hesitant,” not matching. Johnson & Johnson lacked any high associations; however, participants had higher associations for negative words such as “disappointed” and “scared” compared to both Pfizer and Moderna. The consensus among the implicit emotional associations is that Moderna and Pfizer have a more complementary view compared to Johnson & Johnson. Figure 3: Implicit brand association responses, categorized into high, medium, and low based on the timed reaction to exposure to the descriptor. Vax lax or vax to the max: Does it make a difference? This study showed perceptions vary among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Unvaccinated individuals highly associated the vaccine brands with the negative attributes and had low to no associations toward positive attributes when thinking about vaccine brands. For example, Johnson & Johnson was highly associated with negative words, such as “disappointed,” “hesitant,” and “scared” among unvaccinated participants. The inverse is true for vaccinated individuals, who had low associations with the same three negative descriptors. Figure 4: Implicit reaction time results with participants segmented as either vaccinated (i.e., has at least received their first dose) and unvaccinated. The unfavorable perceptions among unvaccinated participants may be affiliated with overall associations about vaccines, causing some individuals to be reluctant out of fear. Many choosing to remain unvaccinated have noted concerns ranging from allergic reactions to belief in vaccine conspiracies (Su et al., 2020). Tailoring communication strategies to specific types of unvaccinated individuals may provide a meaningful shift in perspective. Those with medical concerns or hesitations will have a different understanding of the vaccines compared to someone who is uninformed about the topic. Delivering clear, evidence-based information to dispel false notions around vaccines is critical in helping consumers make informed decisions towards Covid-19 vaccine adoption. Conclusion: Even though the vaccines are proven as a safe, effective, and accessible tool to mitigate risk in the US, consumer perception surrounding the vaccine brands among unvaccinated participants suggests otherwise. Individuals within the unvaccinated population have a lack of trust, which results in a dampening in vaccine acceptance and compliance with health guidelines. Shifts in perception is one of the most valuable ways to enhance vaccine uptake. Each vaccine provider must carefully craft messages and campaigns which target specific individuals for effective outreach. Building trust and a strong narrative about the vaccines is imperative not only with unvaccinated individuals but also the general public since it is unclear currently if shots are waning in immunity due to the passage of time or due to the uptick in variants. To keep individuals protected and prevent overcrowding in hospitals, the potential rollout of boosters requires an informed understanding of the public’s perception in order to best address their concerns. Researchers, government officials, and healthcare providers all benefit from understanding consumer perceptions because it gives insight into the best way to frame the unified message which is all Covid-19 vaccines FDA approved— regardless of the provider—save lives. References: CDC. (2021, August 16). COVID-19 vaccine EFFECTIVENESS. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/how-they-work.html. Pearson, S. (2021, July 2). Comparing the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccines – GoodRx. The GoodRx Prescription Savings Blog. https://www.goodrx.com/blog/comparing-covid-19-vaccines/. Su, Z., Wen, J., Abbas, J., McDonnell, D., Cheshmehzangi, A., Li, X., … & Cai, Y. (2020). A race for a better understanding of COVID-19 vaccine non-adopters. Brain, behavior, & immunity-health, 100159.

Audience Perceptions Drive Event Venue Attendance in Covid Times Flemington, NJ: Entertainment venues—part of the industries hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic—are yearning for consumers to return at pre-pandemic levels. Some of the most recognizable entertainment venues across the country will soon require proof of vaccination to enter their facilities. The entertainment and hospitality industry had been on the verge of returning to normalcy with tours kicking off and festivals happening across the country, but the delta variant has dampened that initial burst of excitement with cancellations and delays. HCD Research, a market research company, in collaboration with graduate student Michael Murphy of the Masters of Behavior and Decision Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, sought to better understand consumer perceptions and priorities when it comes to being wooed back into venues. People are eager to return, but how can venues attract consumers given health concerns? Which mitigation measures should nightclubs, movie theaters and the like utilize to attract consumers? Using HCD’s MaxImplicit methodology (a combination of psychological and traditional survey techniques), revealed both the top consumer needs from venues, as well as the perceptions consumers have for different venues. Adding consumer clustering to the study’s analysis allowed the researchers to identify and profile three distinct consumer clusters: a diverse hesitant group, a conservative group, and a vaccinated liberal group. The following recommendations are based on the research’s learnings: Venues need to clearly highlight safety, cleanliness, and clear mitigation protocols (especially amusement parks, indoor bars/nightclubs, indoor concerts, sporting events, and multi-day festivals). Popular mitigation protocols, such as contactless payment, may not be as effective at enticing consumers and building trust. Venues should consider their audience when deciding which communications will be most effective and balance those communications across different consumer segments. This research found that entertainment venues need to consider consumer perceptions, investing in COVID-19 protection measures, and targeting audiences with promotion efforts moving forward. As Murphy suggested, “while a ‘wait it out’ strategy might be appropriate for some contexts, COVID-19 does not appear to be one of them, meaning venues should proactively fine-tune their strategies.” For more information on this study, visit this link or contact Cara Silvestri (cara.silvestri@hcdi.net).

What Entertainment Venues Need to Know about Consumer Priorities Entertainment venues—part of the industries hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic (Gössling, Scott, & Hall, 2020)—are yearning for consumers to return at pre-pandemic levels. Cancelled events left venues with massive losses, furloughs, and a recovery that could last into the next three years (Nhamo, Dube, & Chikodzi, 2020). But how can venues attract consumers given health concerns? Which illness mitigation measures should night clubs, movie theaters and the like continue utilizing as public health guidelines begin to relax? Right now, the United States is in somewhat of a gray area: increasing vaccination levels are encouraging, but there is still a risk of catching COVID-19, including its potential variants. Health concerns might be especially pressing for people who are ineligible for a COVID-19 vaccine or live in the same household as others who are ineligible. However, consumers are likely eager to return to such venues. This comes as no surprise given the jarring alterations to daily life and devastation people have been forced to reckon with. But some consumers will prefer more safety measures (e.g., face masks and hand sanitizer) than others at public outings. In a survey of over 1,000 people from Croatia, Slovenia and Iran, measures like hand sanitizer availability and venue disinfection were perceived to be most important among respondents when attending sporting events (Perić et al., 2021). Among respondents in Croatia and Slovenia, who were less impacted by COVID-19 relative to those in Iran at the time of publication, limiting food and beverage availability at sporting venues was perceived to be relatively less important. If more venues were aware of consumer priorities, they could more selectively invest in COVID-19 mitigation strategies, which are sometimes costly. The Study Using HCD’s MaxImplicit methodology, we asked (n=250) people to rank COVID-19 mitigation measures at entertainment venues according to their perceived importance. This general population study was conducted in mid-July 2021. The first portion of the survey was conducted using the MaxDiff methodology, which illustrates strong predictors of what will influence respondents (Orme, 2009). Then, we measured the implicit associations respondents hold between venues (e.g., movie theaters and concerts) and their attributes, such as hygienic, crowded, and fun, using an Implicit Association Test (IAT). These complementary measures help to reveal gaps between consumer needs and venue perceptions. MaxDiff Results The MaxDiff revealed the top five consumer needs below. Interestingly, these needs highlight actions (e.g., deep cleaning and ventilation) that occur before arrival. In other words, they are largely not visible at the venue itself. This implies consumers appear to prioritize trust and reliability indirectly. Top-Ranked Needs (MaxDiff) In contrast with the top needs, the bottom five needs below largely involve specific and visible COVID-19 protection measures. These bottom needs are somewhat burdensome for consumers as well. Collectively, the MaxDiff findings suggest that consumers might be looking to place the onus of enacting safety measures onto the venues. Bottom-Ranked Needs (MaxDiff) The MaxDiff findings beg the question, which venues satisfy consumer needs? The IAT portion of the survey can help answer this question. We showed respondents multiple pairings of venues and descriptors. An example pairing is “movie theaters” and “organized.” Then, respondents revealed their association between the two by hitting the spacebar on their keyboard or touching the screen, depending on their device. Importantly, the IAT is a timed reaction test; a faster reaction implies a stronger association. Respondents could also indicate a lack of association by simply not hitting the spacebar or touching the screen. Nine venues and ten descriptors were tested in this study. IAT Results Below is a summary of the IAT findings in relation to the MaxDiff findings. The top needs can be considered related to the attributes Safe, Reliable, and Organized, which were tested in the IAT. The venues on the right—the “Top Venues”—were given their status because they had at least a minimum association with each of the words Safe, Reliable, and Organized. While these venues appear to satisfy consumer needs, the “Bottom Venues” (not listed in the graphic) do not. These include Amusement Parks, Indoor Bars and Nightclubs, Indoor Music Concerts, Indoor Sporting Events, and Outdoor Multi-Day Music Festivals. Therefore, we can recommend that these venues highlight their attributes of Safety, Reliability, and Organization within their messaging to better satisfy consumer needs. Consumer Clustering Another useful way to gather insights from these data is through consumer clustering. This technique allows for consumer segmentation according to similarity. Specifically, K-Means clustering was performed using the MaxDiff data (results shown below) using the software R, resulting in three consumer clusters. The Dimensions represent “collapsed” data. Instead of mapping consumers by the numerous individual variables that were collected, they were mapped according to Dimensions which help summarize the key drivers behind the clusters. The percentages next to the Dimensions indicate how much that Dimension is contributing to the overall clustering. Further, each has a unique profile. The top three variables contributing to Dimension 1 include 1) I feel I will belong at the venue, 2) The experience feels luxurious, and 3) The experience is fun. For Dimension 2, they are 1) The venue makes me feel safe, 2) The venue will require a quarantine period, and 3) The venue is hygienic. What does each cluster look like? Even before summarizing the clusters by demographics, we can already see from the figure above that clusters 1 and 3 have some overlap. Cluster 2, however, is more of an “island” in that it has little overlap with the others. This observation is consistent in the cluster profiles shown below. From left to right, the consumer groupings were dubbed according to their most distinctive demographics: 1) Diverse Hesitant, 2) Conservative, and 3) Vaccinated. Among the unvaccinated segments of the Diverse Hesitant and Conservative clusters, 94% and 77% of them were unsure or unwilling to get vaccinated against COVID-19, respectively. Aside from vaccination, the other demographics that distinguish the clusters include political leaning and the top needs indicated in the MaxDiff. While the Diverse Hesitant and Vaccinated Liberals clusters prioritize clear precautions at venues, the Conservative cluster desires fun and freedom of choice. With these findings in mind, venues can consider which demographics they cater to—or want to cater to—and create targeted communications. Actionable Insights Overall, there are several key findings produced by this study. It is important to recognize, however, that 1) the COVID-19 situation is very dynamic, and 2) the survey was conducted in July 2021. Over time, the COVID-19 situation—and consumer needs along with it—might change. Four key insights are shared below. Collectively, they prompt entertainment venues to consider their perceptions, investments in COVID-19 protection measures, and target audiences. Without careful consideration of these areas, venues run the risk of failing to resonate with consumers. And while a “wait it out” strategy might be appropriate for some contexts, COVID-19 does not appear to be one of them, meaning venues should proactively fine-tune their strategies. References Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1-20. HCD Research. (n.d.). Implicit Association & Response [White paper]. linkedin.com/company/hcd-research HCD Research. (n.d.). Max Diff Scaling [White paper]. linkedin.com/company/hcd-research HCD Research. (n.d.). MaxImplicit [White paper]. linkedin.com/company/hcd-research Nhamo, G., Dube, K., & Chikodzi, D. (2020). Implications of COVID-19 on gaming, leisure and entertainment industry. In Counting the Cost of COVID-19 on the Global Tourism Industry (pp. 273-295). Springer, Cham. Orme, B. (2009). Maxdiff analysis: Simple counting, individual-level logit, and hb. Sawtooth Software. Perić, M., Wise, N., Heydari, R., Keshtidar, M., & Mekinc, J. (2021). Getting back to the event: COVID-19, attendance and perceived importance of protective measures. Kinesiology, 53(1), 12-19.

To explain the WEIRD problem, let’s start with a weird analogy… Every career involves some type of research, which inevitably helps professionals get better at their craft. Consider a baker with a specialization in pies. Custard, cream, and apple pies are all second nature to this person because they learned as much as possible to become an expert in this particular domain. Yet, the credibility of the baker becomes questionable if they start saying they know everything about every type of food using only the knowledge they have about pies. Pies are such a small percentage of all the different types of food in the world- how could this baker possibly make claims over all types of food? This is the exact situation occurring within social science, but rather than worrying about misrepresenting pasta or pastries, there is a bias in participants recruited. Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan (2010) were some of the first researchers to expose the massive amount of disproportionate sampling within behavioral science. The demographics for the majority of research fell into the WEIRD acronym coined by these researchers. WEIRD stands for Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. Although some consumers do fall into the WEIRD category, it is very safe to say it’s not all-encompassing. Recruiting only individuals within this bracket would not present an issue if all humans shared the same reactions and behaviors, but human beings have a lot of variability. Similar problems have been noted in biology and neuroscience where a lot of research solely studied males in neurobiology animal research. In either situation, overarching claims easily misrepresent populations. Ingrained beliefs, values, past experiences, and social conditions all impact judgment, perception, and behavior. Therefore, measuring only a small subsect of the population and generalizing it to all humans is not only misleading—it’s wrong. What types of issues does this create? Cross-cultural studies have demonstrated the need for diversity in research by suggesting the WEIRD population is actually more of an outlier than a norm (Muthukrishna et al., 2020). Patterns within the WEIRD population are cited for being more individualistic, independent, and analytical, and impersonally prosocial (Schulz et al., 2019). To complicate matters even more, variability even exists among, within, and across the WEIRD population (just ask any New Yorker visiting rural Kentucky). These differences highlight the need to understand cross-cultural context in consumer science. Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan (2010)’s paper shares that only 12% of the world’s population was utilized in 96% of psychological samples. This implies there is a much greater likelihood of being studied when attending a Western university as opposed to any person you may pass on the street. Additionally, this disproportionate analysis of human behavior is perpetuated by many of the big labs, journals, editors, researchers, and conferences who also are WEIRD. The study of culture is informed by the researchers’ culture. It is important to have more diverse researchers in the field to help appropriately investigate particular individuals. Without fully knowing what it is like to live in someone else’s culture or society, important questions or specifications may be overlooked. Therefore, a lot of the foundational research may be flawed or inaccurate in its generalizations when replicated with other groups of individuals. The cycle of researching only a small subsect of the population and assuming its applicable universally creates distortion about behavior by neglecting trends and patterns within other groups. Expanding the scope of research is challenging; however, the current literature regarding judgment and decision making is heavily biased since the focus was driven by the WEIRD population. The past literature has a lot to offer in terms of framework, design, as well as cautionary limitations. Findings from any piece of research must be considered within its cultural confines. As scientists, we must acknowledge and appreciate the gaps in research in order to learn more about the human effect. Reviewing the main effects of research under this critical lens may be messier, but it is especially important in consumer science. Exposure to ads, products, or packaging can vary drastically depending on the context. By addressing the differences within cultures and societies around the world, companies can cater to consumers better to meet their personalized needs. While it may feel overwhelming, there is an opportunity to make major improvements by adjusting the research to better serve the target demographic. The Mess in Measures The implications of the WEIRD problem extend into the tools used to measure populations. Having a scale or methodology be validated and reliable with one subgroup does not guarantee its effectiveness with another. Advances in technology have provided many benefits for faster and easier communication, data collection, and management; however, not all tools are made equal or accessible. Customizing the choice in methodologies to the research question is crucial when trying to explore a concept for a certain group. It is important to be aware of the constraints about each tool or technique in order to determine if that limitation will compromise the study. Certain advancements also may isolate certain populations. For example, consider a study using an app as a way to record daily experiences of participants. Having a smart phone compatible with the app is a major limiting factor in recruitment. Furthermore, within that population, many individuals may be technologically inept and find using the app challenging. An inability to handle the app is just as concerning, since the data will not be recorded if the participant cannot access the right interface. As seen in this example, to meet scientific goals, it is important to account for the culture and conditions of the participants. For research innovation and advancement to take place, studies must have strategies in place to understand and account for the differences that may occur. Blind Spots in Technology As market researchers, HCD looks to produce the best quality results for specific research questions. By constantly exploring new and emerging technology, it is important to consider how scalable the technology is and how useful its application will be in any of our client’s studies. One of the most important parts of evaluating new technology is understanding how to use the tool, which includes understanding any barriers. Critically evaluating the tools is one of the first safeguards to ensuring useful data. We are motivated to seek out new methods and technology for specific research questions to ensure there is a consideration for the validity of the findings through its connections to the cross-cultural context. Awareness of WEIRD is important because research can plan and design in ways that address the issue. The way consumers live will have a major impact on the way they see, hear, and experience any product, ad, or package. As the research is crafted, the population explored, and the tools used to measure any effect, should not be taken lightly. Screening questions must be carefully constructed with consideration of complex components such as gender identity and mixed races. These decisions must have a strong justification as they will have ramifications on other research decisions such as sample size and scalability. Getting comfortable with familiar methods may be tempting, but the objective is to be effective not compliant. In The Art of War by Sun Tzu, he shares wise advice very applicable to consumer science research, “Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.” Understanding context is how this field will continue to grow and evolve, but only if the appropriate measures are used to accurately report an experience. If you are interested in starting a conversation about using the right tool for the right question, please feel free to contact HCD Research via email at info@hcdi.net or call 908.788.9393. References: Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychological science, 31(6), 678-701. Schulz, J. F., Bahrami-Rad, D., Beauchamp, J. P., & Henrich, J. (2019). The Church, intensive kinship, and global psychological variation. Science, 366(6466).

Coauthored by HCD’s VP of Research & Innovation, Michelle Niedziela, PhD, and Manager of Behavioral & Marketing Sciences, Kathryn Ambroze As seen in the retail issue of NMSBA’s INsights mag… Meaningful product or service experiences drive consumer satisfaction. From enjoyment to usability, designing a successful consumer-centric experience meeting consumer needs and expectations. Defining success in this space is not always straightforward, as what constitutes a good experience for one person may differ for someone else. Can tools from neuroscience provide much needed moment-by-moment assessment of the user experience (UX)? Is it value-added or just a fancy add-on? Unfortunately, there hasn’t always been a good track record for neuromarketing products meeting their promises, especially in the case of UX. Here we will break down key needs in UX and how neuro approaches can pave a path forward. What is successful UX? UX design is a culmination of numerous decisions from aesthetics to functionality. But ultimately, a successful UX design must meet certain criteria: easy, useful, desirable. Is it easy? Usability research is the process of making sure that things work well and are easy to use and motivate some call-to-action (such as subscriptions or purchases). A normal person should be able to use the product without getting frustrated or annoyed. The challenge in designing successful UX is that consumers may have different thresholds for what is intuitive. Is it useful? If the product purpose is overlooked, disrupted, or ignored, the consumer need remains unmet. If expectations are unmet, consumers may find satisfaction elsewhere by abandoning the site or returning the product. Learning the goals, skills, preferences, and tendencies of the consumers enhances the content and facilitates the appropriate call-to-action. Is it desirable? Desirability is an important component of UX that gauges how much a product or service is wanted by a consumer. Sometimes, high desirability can be expressed through a premium. Increased prices sometimes evoke desirability—for example, as seen with a sleek expensive car design. Successful UX research can be challenging as it often relies on retrospective consumer feedback and disruptive think-aloud exercises. Retroactively reviewing a product experience may result in omission of valuable information, sharing only what is easily recalled. Think-aloud exercises, or answering questions during an experience, interrupts the experience natural flow. Self-reports and questionnaires are prone to different types of bias which may influence what consumers share and can be ambiguous or misleading if the user struggles to recall the experience or how to best describe it. Demand effects (changes in the user’s behavior caused by assumptions about a study’s purpose) and other social pressures may impact the thoughts or feelings disclosed. Brainy Solutions There are several approaches to gaining insights into UX; however, determining the ideal methodology should be dependent on the research objective. Choosing the right tools involves acknowledging one tool will never provide all the answers. To gain valuable and clear findings, streamline research to learn for a specific question. Reflect on the current knowledge gaps to formulate a research question and use this question to determine appropriate methodologies and technologies. Through proper UX testing, you can find design flaws you might otherwise overlook, then leverage these insights to make improvements. Whenever you run a usability test, your chief objectives are to: Determine whether testers can complete tasks successfully and independently. Assess their performance and mental state as they try to complete tasks, to see how well your design works. See how much users enjoy using it. Identify problems and their severity. Find solutions. To add context to fragmented traditional approaches (think-aloud, retrospective self-report), tools from neuroscience, such as electroencephalography (EEG), provide a novel way to explore gaps in UX.Brain-based, non-obtrusive measurements can ensure the experience is intuitive and optimized for consumer satisfaction through proper study design and meaningful metrics such as cognitive load and emotional response. So how can neuroscientific tools help? Don’t make users think – Neuroscientific Tools When it comes to UX, if you make people think, you make them unhappy. Users don’t want to see a product or service like some sort of difficult puzzle – they want to know what they should do immediately and then do it. The more you make people think, the more likely they are to go elsewhere to get the job done. Brain-based measures can capture objective information beyond self-reported responses using tools such as EEG. This non-invasive methodology collects unbiased, user-generated reactions, uncovering cognitive states, such as engagement or alertness, or mental workload, like attention or stress (Johnson et al., 2011; Frey et al., 2016). With high temporal sampling rates, EEG records neural activity in real time, avoiding disrupting the user experience and determining the user’s interactions at any point (Bunge & Kahn, 2009). Exploring the user neurological emotional states and cognition throughout a product experience helps identify pain points and user needs, exposing compelling and actionable next steps for designers. Time Wasting Sucks – Behavioral Analysis Consumers go online to save time, not to spend it. Consumers move on if you waste their time. This concept should be obvious when you consider how page loading times are analyzed in Google ranks. Further, people are habitual. If something works well – consumers tend to continue to use it. Even if there’s a better way to do something out there – it’s unlikely that they’ll go looking for it. That doesn’t mean that consumers won’t eventually have it called to their attention but if you make things more usable; you make them sticky and habit forming. To gain context surrounding the user experience and the paths people take, a combination of eye tracking and behavioral coding can lend insight. Eye tracking informs how users view and interact with different interfaces. In behavioral coding, each code is used to mark the occurrence and duration of a specific behavior or set of behaviors. Behavioral drivers are exposed by learning what users visually attend to or ignore and comparing it with qualitative or neuroscientific tools. These outputs give supporting evidence about what consumers find intuitive, as well as what elements advance or hinder progress in completing the task at hand. The observations indicate what (through eye tracking) and how (through behavioral coding) consumer behavior fails or successful reaches a call-to-action. UX Testing is an Iterative Process Perhaps most important in any research is proper research design for clear and actionable results. To make usability testing work best, you should: 1. Plan – A.) Define what you want to test. Ask yourself questions about your design/product. What aspect/s of it do you want to test? With a clear hypothesis, you’ll have the exact aspect you want to test. B.) Decide how to conduct your test. Define the scope of what to test (e.g., navigation) and stick to it throughout the test. When you test aspects individually, you’ll eventually build a broader view of how well your design works overall. 2. Set user tasks – A.) Prioritize the most important tasks to meet objectives (e.g., complete checkout) with no more than 5 tasks per participant in a 1-hr timeframe. B.) Clearly define tasks with realistic goals. C.) Create scenarios where users can try to use the design naturally. [figure caption] HCD’s NeuroUX study of usability for COVID-19 vaccination registration using EEG, eye tracking, and behavioral coding. The Fairytale Ending: Creating an Intuitive Interface UX design influenced by cognitive data can fill the gaps within UX research. Neuroscientific measures should never replace traditional measures. However, these tools can be a great addition to investigating certain research questions. Knowing the priorities and pitfalls of any product or service experience allows designers to solve for the wants and needs of the user. It is through an accessible and seamless design that user engagement is captured and sustained. The integration of behavioral designs into user research provides tangible data about the entire experience. EEG, eye tracking, and behavioral coding tools can analyze the user experience, giving direct feedback on how real consumers work with the design. Proper research design exposes behavioral drivers of the user experience and gives insight into ways to help consumers feel in control and satisfied. By employing appropriate metrics for targeted research questions, designers gain insight into building clear and consistent interfaces. Knowing the user translates to user-friendly outcomes, promoting user confidence, trust, and loyalty. By asking the right questions and using the right measures, user research can construct a consumer’s happily ever after. References: Bunge, S. A., and Kahn, I. (2009). ‘‘Cognition: an overview of neuroimaging techniques,’’ in Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (Vol. 2), ed L. R. Squire (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 1063–1067. Frey, J., Daniel, M., Castet, J., Hachet, M., & Lotte, F. (2016). Framework for electroencephalography-based evaluation of user experience. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2283-2294). Johnson, R. R., Popovic, D. P., Olmstead, R. E., Stikic, M., Levendowski, D. J., & Berka, C. (2011). Drowsiness/alertness algorithm development and validation using synchronized EEG and cognitive performance to individualize a generalized model. Biological psychology, 87(2), 241-250.